Interestingly, I have been reading about the effect of sound waves on the brain and how certain sound frequencies can syncronize the left and right hemisphere of the brain and bring about a state of deep meditation and cause more awareness, peace and joy. It increases intelligence and helps in the development of the physical, mental and emotional aspect of our life.
Check out: www.centerpointe.com and read the book of Bill Harris.
I found a even much easier and faster way via the Isha Keys (www.Isha.com).

"Once you accept all your responsibilities in its totality,
you become mature.
You stop throwing tantrums and
you stop seeking messiahs.
Then there is no need for any Jesus to save you.
Nor can any Jesus save you -
he was exploiting your situation." --- Osho

Well, you've pretty much said everything already. The brain is an extraordinary organ with capabilities that still surprise researchers. We know that the brain is able to adapt and change its configuration when need be. It's not too uncommon that people hit by ictuses will recover and have their lives and personalities changed forever. That's because the brain, once it's been damaged in a way that lies within its capabilities to recover, can "learn" to reroute electrical signals through a whole different neural network, dodging those parts, those neurons, that have been damaged beyond repair. The younger the patient, the easier the recovery and the higher the adapting power of the brain, but an adult organ is somewhat able to adapt as well.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

I have read some about it and it is very interesting.

I think this topic is more about LEARNING development...

i have heard many times that a young child absorbs new information like a sponge, yet you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Let's take a look at the PERSONALITY differences here... an old dog is set in his ways... has learned enough to function on it's own comfortable level. It has developed it's own routine. There is nothing new to it, it has seen everything at least once... at least it thinks so well enough to be lazy about learning the new trick... there is no point to it, so the dog just "writes it off" as useless information and forgets all about it... basically, the dog just isn't interested.

A young child however is intrigued by the constant bombardment of new "ideas". It is the curiosity of the child that leads to it's eagerness to learn, which increases it's APTITUDE to learn because the child actively participates in the learning process... This is why a child absorbs information like a sponge, because it is actually INTERESTED in the information. As the child grows up, it begins to develop a routine. It begins EXPERIMENTING with what action can stimulate a desirable or even undesirable response... eventually reaching a point where it can function on a comfortable level with the information that it has already "stored". Sometimes it's inability to learn can be attributed to it's lack of interest, or even a stubborn stand against the concept, motivated by another emotion, and sometimes it can be attributed to the "laziness" factor which is basically a small desire to learn and an interest in the concept, however, the mental "work" that is necessary to learn the concept is too great a load to take on, so the person just does without...

Helen Keller would have learned that new language at 25 or 40 years old if she was (self)motivated properly and had a strong interest to learn it(you know, no "laziness" factor)... there is no way one can say that it is the fact that her brain was so young that caused her to learn that language... because in reality, the credit lies primarily on her personality. Her brain was damaged FROM BIRTH beyond what most of us, probably all of us, will ever have... yet she managed to pick up a completely different language, that today, most of us adults would NOT be able to master, unless of course there was an eagerness to learn, and an absence of the "laziness" factor.

~ PSYKO ~

For her brain to have recovered from that damage, by the way, would mean that at some point her hearing and sight would have been restored.

~ PSYKO ~

and if i'm not mistaking DIDN'T it to some degree much later in her life??? certainly not at 8 - 10 years old

~ PSYKO ~

Well, I am not a scientist, so my knowledge is limited, but i do know it is documented fact that the brain, from 0-10 goes through a period of neuron transmissions, spurred by activity around them (reading to the child, e.g.) that in turn develops abilities. This ends at about age ten, which is why it is harder for adults to learn new things than for children. Not impossible , mind you, but harder because the brain simply isn't functioning in the same way. It isn't simply a matter of laziness in adults and boundless drive in children. Children are sponges because of their brain development (if they are healthy and getting the right nutrients and stimulants).

By the way, Helen Keller was born healthy and with eyesight and hearing--it was later that she lost her vision and hearing.

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but one step--Napolean Bonaparte

First, what is an ictus? And yes, I heard something about a man hit in the head by an arrow who had a major personality change, but still he survived. And also more recently (maybe ten years ago) I watched a doc about a musician (violinist?) who suffered brain damage and they think that what you are talking about (that "rewiring") is what occurred, because the center responsible for performing these musical tasks was badly damaged, but she was still able to make her music.

Psycho, sure it's about learning, but the brain fascinates me full stop, so the injury angle thrown into the mix is fine by me.

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but one step--Napolean Bonaparte

the activities that go on around a child at that age are mostly unfamiliar, which STIMULATES large quantities of thoughts and emotions... it is this COGNITIVE stimulation that is responsible for the recorded brain activity... the child simply chooses to USE the brain more when stimulated with that kind of excitement... the brain's activity doesn't stimulate the thoughts and emotions, the thoughts and emotions stimulate the brain activity... as we have already pointed out in another topic, BRAIN ACTIVITY is a PRODUCT of cognitive function.

the simplest way to explain the reason that ADULTS do not learn as fast (or show the same level of activity) is what I call the laziness factor... as well as lack of interest... a closed mind learns nothing while an open mind absorbs readily, it doesn't matter if you are 6 or 60

~ PSYKO ~

and forgive me about my rustiness on the hellen keller story, it has been about 16 years since I last heard ANYTHING about it. do the math, I was 6, and I was more interested in playing football during breaks than listening to my teacher read a book about hellen keller. But I really did think that she regained some of her hearing and/or sight... i guess I am wrong about her story though... I can accept when I am wrong about something.

~ PSYKO ~

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

Shaka sweetheart... has anyone ever told you how PERFECT your lips are???

Anyway, these are YOUR words remember???

"Brain activity is to thought what thermal energy is to electrical or chemical reactions."

I'm sorry, but if I remember my 5th grade science class accurately, THERMAL ENERGY is a byproduct of chemical and electrical reactions... in fact it is an indicator that a reaction is actually taking place.

So it wasn't me who pointed this concept out... it was YOU who drew your own conclusion, that BRAIN ACTIVITY is a product of cognitive functioning, since a THOUGHT is a cognitive function anyway.

So brain activity, if we are going to keep the equation accurate, is an INDICATOR that cognitive phenomena is taking place. By the way, great job on your deduction here bro, it's the most accurate conclusion you have drawn on the matter so far.

~ PSYKO ~

No, sweetheart. My words were:

Nice try, though.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

I'm sorry but 1) you don't seem to remember very well 2) the whole thing is a biiit more complicated than what they taught you in your 5th grade science class. Thermal energy is not a byproduct of chemical and electrical reactions. Thermal energy is a part of internal energy which is, quite logically, the energy that the substance has. The indicator of a reaction is called the enthalpy change of a reaction, and that's something different.

"If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction." (Judith Hayes)

it's the energy RELEASED during the reaction... sure, all the energy may have been there in the first place, but it is the EXCESS energy that is release... you know, the energy that is not needed to complete the reaction??? in otherwords... simply put for simple minds that constantly try to over complicate matters, it's a byproduct...

Did EINSTEIN make matters so complicated when he came up with his most seemingly complex equation???

you know, e= (m)(c squared)

that seems simple enough, and he was actually pretty smart huh?

~ PSYKO ~

trust me, neither one of you are any EINSTEIN.. in fact I would LOVE to know what you're I.Q. levels are... to be honest, I would be surprised if you could actually qualify for membership in mensa.

~ PSYKO ~

OK first of all my English doesn't extend into complicated scientific words, and besides that, shaka and outi, what you are talking about is waaaaay over my head! Maybe you could explain a bit for a simple person?

Psycho. Some of what they taught you in fifth grade it outdated. Even information from ten years ago is old. What I'm talking about is not some arcane information gleaned from a science journal--it's common knowledge. And I am totally baffled by your insistence that adults who can't learn something are simply "lazy." Some are, of course, but that is not the scientific reason as to why children and adults learn differently. A ten-month-old baby doesn't have the cognitive ability to wake up and say, "I think I will work really hard on my reading skills today." Their brains are more active than adults and they just do it--but the right surroundings are needed: people who will show them things so that everything within the brain can function, healthy foods to help build a strong brain and so on.

And the teenagers I see almost everyday who struggle with reading comprehension are not failing because they are lazy. Well, yes, some of them are. But that's not the only reason. (And some of them fall into laziness after other factors came first.) You need to read a bit up on pre-school children at risk for reading failure and the links between poverty and failing in school.

Look up the cases of "Genie" and "Victor" for a little reading on this--Victor is a bit more obscure but Genie was an American child pretty much left to rot in her bedroom, tied to a potty chair. She was 13 when found and at that time could not even talk. Doctors and scientists who worked with her could only help her learn a limited amount because they thought she had passed that crucial age when so much takes place in the brain to stimulate growth and learning. She wanted to learn and was jumping to learn, but all the want in the world doesn't help if your brain has not been nourished and pathways have been sealed.

Last thought: the word "synopsis" just ran through my brain. Where does that fit in?

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but one step--Napolean Bonaparte

Personally I think IQ levels are tripe. I have known people with incredibly high levels but couldn't find their way out from a paper bag because they have no common sense. On the other hand, my brother is dyslexic and probably couldn't answer half the question on the exam, but he is one of the smartest people I know. Mensa means nothing to him.

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but one step--Napolean Bonaparte

Everything they talk about is over quite a few people's heads... it's how they sell the illusion that they are smarter than their contenders... they create a sense of confusion. NOTHING they talk about is as complicated as they make it seem. But they seem to believe that it all is, which is why they still don't know much about what they talk about. they are still trying to sort through all the complexities that they unnecessarily create.

Moving on to your response now...

I didn't say adults were lazy, I summed up the blockage that keeps them from learning new concepts with the term "laziness factor". A child's eagerness to learn combined with it's curiosity about new "territory" DOES greatly increase it's aptitude to learn, and that IS scientific... a ten month olds brain is not fully developed either... it is still growing. I used to hear when I was young that every new thing you learn adds another wrinkle to your brain... well that's just bull shit... it is just that when you do the majority of your learning your brain is still developing. I know that I am opening myself up for criticism from the great shaka at least with this comment, but so be it. However, your claim that a child's brain is just MORE ACTIVE at a young age and you relate that to its ability to learn, well, now you are saying that it has a greater deal of cognitive processes going on at a young age that is related to it's ability to learn. which has been exactly my point from the beginning of this thread. Cognition is memory, imagination, thought, emotion, etc. any nonphysical element to mental functioning.

About your teenagers above... their block in learning the READING abilities is predominantly related to their perception of the task... i am quite sure they get worked up quite a bit about it, and will tell you easily that they just can't do it... but let's consider why they might believe that they can't... you see, they see the task as overwhelming, it doesn't come as easily to them as they would expect it to based on their own judgment of their abilities... or they have been told they can't do it so much that they believe it and are afraid to fail if they try (or succeed for that matter)... or they may have a lack of interest... or they over-complicate the task and confuse themselves before they even begin(or shortly afterward)... the fact is, their internal dialog(thoughts and emotions that they create within themselves through what they say to themselves) has be shown on MORE than one occasion to be the primary barrier on their ability to learn to read or catch up on their math homework. It makes no difference if their parents are millionaires or scraping just to get by... it's the same with no prejudice to class. I will concede that youth who come from a "poor" class show greater trends of having trouble learning in school, however, this is only true if the child understands what poor is, and believes that it fits into that category. basically, being poor, knowing it's poor, and having a negative outlook because it's poor instills a defeatist attitude rooted in it's personality and personality DEVELOPMENT. It's this attitude that leads to the child making it's life a self-fulfilling prophesy, if it does not change at some point in it's development. some children seem to NATURALLY change this attitude at a young age, and use the fact that they are poor, or black, or whatever perceived handicap as motivation to fight even harder, and these are the children that excel beyond their classmates, even if they are the only poor child in the class. these particular children do not stop absorbing things as a sponge in elementary school all the time, in fact, some of them continue to absorb information like a sponge well into adulthood. By the way, your suggestion that I read up on preschool issues and all of that... the only data that you will find on that particular issue will be PRIMARILY statistical data... statistics and probability is a self contradictory mathematical theory that cannot be proven... because once a statistic changes any little bit, so does the probability, and if at any point the probability does not equal 100% then there is always the possibility that it is wrong. there has to be absolute for the mathematics to be sound... however, i am not saying to throw the entire theory away just because it can falsify itself based on its own parameters... because statistical data provides helpful(as well as sometimes detrimental) clues to the answer to the current issue. the problem with the information that you will find on the topic is this... statistics are the PRIMARY source of data used to determine what the cause of young children's PROBABILITY to fail in school, while the POSSIBLY contributing factors are only limited to what the scientist hypothesizes as the most likely to contribute, completely negating other possible factors, then they bunch all the kids up together and take a list of which ones possess the circumstances to create those factors and they make a statistic... completely negating other possible factors and individual circumstances, they group them into bunches. This is why the data that results from a statistical study will always be incomplete, and therefore the interpretation of the data will also be incomplete and sometimes way off the mark, because more data is needed in order to solve the issue at hand. However, as stated above, statistical data DOES provide Helpful clues more often than it doesn't. I can't believe I had to go through this extremely long winded explanation just to make my next point...

I have read up quite a bit on child and adolescent development, and have taken a look at MANY reports derived from statistical data and analyzed the conclusions derived from that data, but having a scientific interest in psychology, i had to test the conclusions provided with my own experiments involving individual cases before I could accept those conclusions as fact... if I found any inconsistencies or any indication that the data provided may be a little off, then I would not accept the data as fact and would further experiment with the particular case that raised such doubt. I admit, that with each success in removing a learning block for any particular subject in a child, teenager, or even adult; I did not even consider any neurological contributions to the problem... I worked solely with cognitive theory. In finding success against the odds presented by the statistical data, I was forced to draw new conclusions (I have been eagerly studying psychology for about ten years now, focusing primarily on cognitive theory by the way). I admit that I do not know everything that there is to know about child development, learning and personality(which is why i'm STILL a student) however, i have not found any one hypothesis to explain the cause of learning blocks among children and adolescents that I could not find at least one case that fits the parameters of the study that could be changed against the odds outlined in the conclusion of the data. And because of that, there is no absolute, therefore the conclusion is not what i would call "air tight"... in otherwords both sides of the equation don't match, and therefore, more research is required in order to hypothesize better explanations that are closer to "air tight" then the original conclusions. Previous conclusions are important though, they provide helpful clues in order to further advance the particular study being performed.

"Doctors and scientists who worked with her could only help her learn a limited amount because they thought she had passed that crucial age when so much takes place in the brain to stimulate growth and learning."

key word here, THOUGHT, that was their biggest mistake if they were really trying to help her... they went off of belief instead of trying to overcome the odds.

Her pathways were not sealed, they were just not being used. And I will admit that undernourishment of her brain very well could have been a contributing factor, but that particular problem could have easily been solved for her by providing nourishment. But you are right, all the want in the world alone cannot make one learn, especially if she focused too much on her desire to learn. She could have been stimulated to learn to learn quite well on her own if one of those doctors could have gained a deep understanding of her personality and instilled a large amount of curiosity within her about how, why, and when something works... she would have done her own studies, and naturally formed her conclusions through trial and error of course, which would have lead to her teaching herself through study, any new concept she took on. in a sense, she would have learned to learn.

SYNOPSIS?

syn·op·sis (s-npss)
n. pl. syn·op·ses (-sz)
A brief outline or general view, as of a subject or written work; an abstract or a summary.

It could mean that you are being a smart ass and telling me that you want me NOT to be long winded on this one(which is what I believe but could be wrong) it didn't work by the way did it?

Or you are trying to say that in those reports, the synopses are the only parts that you draw your conclusions from, which are basically the conclusions already outlined for you, you just translate it to represent what it all means to you personally without any further study of your own.

~ PSYKO ~

Now here will be your synopsis since this particular post is lacking in substance as compared to your previous one... (by the way, that was an excellent post that you made, it stimulated me) :-)

1. Einstein apparently didn't know how to comb his hair, so I see your point here.
2. Dyslexia (as well as many other MENTAL disorders), I have found, are VERY common among the more intelligent and often creative of people... the higher intellectual percentile if you will. Just because he can't read or write, let's say STRAIGHT, does not add to or take away from his general learning aptitude, which I hypothesize(and have for about 5 years running) is EXACTLY what general intelligence is.
3. I will concede that the standard I.Q. testing batteries are biased to what the compiler expects of the NORM, but those of higher intelligence just aren't normal are they? :-)

My step father is dyslexic and he is probably the smartest person i have ever met.(even though I can't stand the fucker)

Mensa means nothing to me as well, that is another thing that I gave a try and didn't like, but I was invited to be a member in the Tallahassee, Florida chapter.

~ PSYKO ~

That's the enthalpy change of a reaction, and it can be positive or negative. That means that reactions can either consume (endothermic) or release (exothermic) energy. The substance does not release "the energy it doesn't need". It's the energy that is consumed or released while chemical bounds are breaking and new ones are forming. It's the difference of internal energies of the compounds you have before the reaction and after it. Let's not have a competition of who knows more about it. Just accept you aren't always that one.

chana_batata: What I'm writing is kinda off topic. I just wanted to correct some things psyko said. Thermodynamics is an important part of what I study at university so don't worry if you don't understand everything, it is very complicated. I'm not trying to seem smart and make things more complicated than they are. I just get kinda angry when I see people giving wrong information.

Anyway, let's get back to the actual topic.

"If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction." (Judith Hayes)

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

I see why your education doesn't cost you a dime... it would be FRAUD if it did.

~ PSYKO ~

Nope, you see Einstein(who was a genius with an I.Q. of about 168) realized that he had a lot of complexities to overcome to arrive at the most simple of explanations, and unlike you, he explained his discoveries in the most simple form he could, having already done the work himself sifting through the complexities... I'm not talking about anything that has to do with you contradicting me, I'm talking about your lack of understanding of certain topics and ability to break the complexities down to their most simple of explanations... but I guess that does show that you cannot contend with someone who has already sifted through the complexities and broken them down to their most simple forms; whether that person is me, or Einstein makes no difference.

Oh, and about you're other comment here, I never once mentioned anything about anyone's dick, but since you wanna bring it up... i'm pretty confident that not only is my dick LONGER than yours, it's also wider, stronger, and I even know how to USE it better than you know how to use yours. but lets save this for another channel shall we?

~ PSYKO ~

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

Shite, psycho, I couldn't even read all that crap. Have you ever heard the word pithy?

And wait a second, weren't you the one whingeing about how someone else is trying to act above themselves (or others)? Why can't you just take part in a conversation without whipping yourself into a frenzy and disrupting everybody's chi?

Don't answer that. It's not likely to be pretty.

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but one step--Napolean Bonaparte